“Magnets,” “flypaper,” “putting the riding wheels on the bike for the [Iraqi] children” – these were a few of the images I heard bandied about as I floated from CNN to various prime-time news shows to ABC’s Ted Koppel last night in the wake of the devastating suicide bombing of the UN Mission in Iraq, an act that brought to my mind the catastrophic and endless Russian war in Chechnya.
Yesterday, I opened my hometown paper and found that the lead New York Times editorial, under the title The Baghdad Bombing, A Mission imperiled, responded to the suicide bombing of the UN Mission by calling for the sending of additional American troops to Iraq:
“Terrorists aim not just at inflicting death and devastation. They also hope to poison the emotional and political climate around their targets. Tragically, the truck bombers who blew up the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad yesterday have already succeeded on the first score, killing the chief U.N. representative in Iraq and at least 16 others, and disrupting desperately needed international relief efforts. They must not be allowed the second triumph, further deepening the psychological chasm between reconstruction efforts and Iraqi civilians.
“The Bush administration has to commit sufficient additional resources, and, if necessary, additional troops, to prevent that. Iraqis need to see that Washington has the will and the means to get their country back on its feet.”
This brought an American catastrophe to mind: Vietnam. The ruling elite of our country, then (as now), simply could not imagine an actual withdrawal, no matter how disastrous the situation came to seem. Withdrawal was normally referred to derisively in that era as “cutting and running.” Real withdrawal strategies were, with the rarest of exceptions, simply beyond the pale of elite mainstream thinking until very late in the war. As in Vietnam then, so in Iraq today. The Bush administration invaded so convinced of a glorious victory that exiting that country wasn’t in anyone’s thoughts, no less plans. They lacked utterly a so-called exit strategy — a crucial “lesson” of Vietnam that Colin Powell, when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, placed at the heart of the interventionary doctrine that took his name.
Now, it’s obvious – even, I suspect, to some of the neocons — that the Iraq this administration has tried to construct for the last four months looks ever more like a catastrophe, not a functioning country, not even a functioning client. Napoleon supposedly once said, “Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools.” For the Busheviks, most Democratic politicians, and almost all of the media,”exit” is still in that same dictionary. The thought that we’re now facing problems that may prove irresolvable is evidently like one of those little rubber mallets banging elite opinion on the knee – and the knee-jerk response is: more. More troops will solve the problem – ours or those of whatever “allies” we can bribe, cajole, or finance into offering troops.
And speaking of Vietnam, Senator (and former POW) John McCain, in Iraq when the UN bombing happened, is now quietly beginning to attack the Bush administration from the right, exactly by calling for more troops. (Reuters‘ report on this was headlined “Sen. McCain: More Troops Needed to Tackle Iraq.”) By the way, keep your eye on Bush poll ratings which are now down in the 52-53% range; that is, back to where they were before 9/11. The question is when (not, I think, if) the President’s polling figures will break that 50% barrier and so crack through the post-Florida divided nation It’s then that McCain or others will undoubtedly begin to consider challenging Bush for the presidential nomination.
“The Bush administration has to commit sufficient additional resources, and, if necessary, additional troops, to prevent that. Iraqis need to see that Washington has the will and the means to get their country back on its feet.”
This brought an American catastrophe to mind: Vietnam. The ruling elite of our country, then (as now), simply could not imagine an actual withdrawal, no matter how disastrous the situation came to seem. Withdrawal was normally referred to derisively in that era as “cutting and running.” Real withdrawal strategies were, with the rarest of exceptions, simply beyond the pale of elite mainstream thinking until very late in the war. As in Vietnam then, so in Iraq today. The Bush administration invaded so convinced of a glorious victory that exiting that country wasn’t in anyone’s thoughts, no less plans. They lacked utterly a so-called exit strategy — a crucial “lesson” of Vietnam that Colin Powell, when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, placed at the heart of the interventionary doctrine that took his name.
Now, it’s obvious – even, I suspect, to some of the neocons — that the Iraq this administration has tried to construct for the last four months looks ever more like a catastrophe, not a functioning country, not even a functioning client. Napoleon supposedly once said, “Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools.” For the Busheviks, most Democratic politicians, and almost all of the media,”exit” is still in that same dictionary. The thought that we’re now facing problems that may prove irresolvable is evidently like one of those little rubber mallets banging elite opinion on the knee – and the knee-jerk response is: more. More troops will solve the problem – ours or those of whatever “allies” we can bribe, cajole, or finance into offering troops.
And speaking of Vietnam, Senator (and former POW) John McCain, in Iraq when the UN bombing happened, is now quietly beginning to attack the Bush administration from the right, exactly by calling for more troops. (Reuters‘ report on this was headlined “Sen. McCain: More Troops Needed to Tackle Iraq.”) By the way, keep your eye on Bush poll ratings which are now down in the 52-53% range; that is, back to where they were before 9/11. The question is when (not, I think, if) the President’s polling figures will break that 50% barrier and so crack through the post-Florida divided nation It’s then that McCain or others will undoubtedly begin to consider challenging Bush for the presidential nomination.
In any case, it seems that when most Americans start to get that “quagmire” feeling, they automatically think more, not less. There was a word for it in the Vietnam era: escalation. And it happened over and over again. Victory – or at least “not loss” – was the only “exit” American leaders or the media could imagine in those years. (Just think what might have happened if the New York Times had come out against escalation and for departure in 1966, not years later. Imagine if the new Bill Keller-run Times had come out for less and exit, not more and macho on August 21, 2003, rather than postponing that editorial to the unknown future when so many more Americans and Iraqis will have died.)
We of the antiwar movement need to call for an exit strategy that involves bringing our troops home — all of them and fast. Admittedly, it’s never been tried in a situation like this and it’s the last thing this administration wants. Forget all the talk about liberation, democracy, or an independent Iraq, and just focus on something simple, something that rings of reality. The Americans have long been planning to replace Saddam’s demobilized military of 400,000 with an Iraqi army-lite of 40,000, created over a three-year period, with no air force. As long as that plan remains in effect, we will be Iraq’s protector in the volatile Middle East till death do us part. It’s interesting that almost nothing is being written about the permanent bases we are already setting up there. They should be the focus of real media attention, for as long as they remain, there really will be no such thing as an independent Iraq or an independent UN administration of anything in Iraq. That’s just a fact on the ground. Keep it in mind.
We Americans need an exit strategy, but right now, as the beginning of Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman’s piece today indicates (Wanted: Presidential plan for Iraq), the common wisdom, already something like gospel, is otherwise. We’re stuck, so, whatever your position, grin and bear it:
“With a few exceptions, Americans of every political stripe, whether they supported or opposed the invasion of Iraq, now accept the grim reality of our presence there.
“Most of us understand that by invading Iraq, we also took responsibility for its future. There is no groundswell demanding that we bring our troops home. None of the realistic contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination has made that argument, nor is there any discernible sentiment in Congress to that effect.”
I usually admire Bookman’s columns, but I’m amazed that so few people can even consider the possibility of departing Iraq.
Some in Iraq know otherwise. The World Bank has an exit strategy. They withdrew their small contingent yesterday, as evidently did the IMF. Robert Collier of the San Francisco Chronicle, just back from covering Iraq, writes ( Blast highlights U.S. failure to end chaos in Iraq):
“In a statement, the U.N. employees’ association called on Secretary-General Kofi Annan ‘to suspend all operations in Iraq and withdraw its staff until such time as measures can be taken to improve security.’ U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said the organization would stay in Iraq, but he suggested the mission might be reduced.
“One early pullout was Internews, a nonprofit group based in Arcata (Humboldt County) that is helping create independent media in Iraq. Markos Kounalakis, the chairman of Internews, said he had decided Tuesday to withdraw his group’s staffer from Iraq. ‘The blow is devastating to reconstruction efforts in the country, but we need some time to figure out what our strategy will be for continuing to help drive media reconstruction,’ he wrote in an e-mail.”
Most foreign investors have adopted what might be called a preemptive exit strategy: don’t invest. This is largely the Halliburton occupation of Iraq – and an occupation it is. All other outside entities in Iraq, including the UN Mission, have essentially been powerless adjuncts to the American occupation authorities – and given the men organizing postwar Iraq, it could be no other way. Yesterday, according to the New York Times, our Viceroy in Baghdad preemptively ordered the sad and sorry Iraq Governing Council to act independent. He didn’t, mind you, say be independent, just put a more assertively “Iraqi” face on the American occupation. His is essentially a share the blame, not the wealth plan. Here, according to Dexter Filkins and Neil MacFarquhar, is the Iraqi response ( U.S. Official Tells Iraqis to Assert More Authority):
“The confrontation clearly reflected a growing American conviction that a greater and more visible Iraqi involvement in government might allay some hostility to the American-led occupation. Iraqi officials said the Council had responded by saying it lacked authority to convince Iraqis it was effective or relevant.
“Iraqi Council members have repeatedly said they should be granted more authority over the police force. ‘You can’t blame for us anything,’ said Adnan Pachachi, a council member, in a recent interview. ‘We don’t have any responsibility.'”
Filkins and MacFarquhar add at article’s end that Robert Painter, the coordinator of humanitarian assistance in Baghdad said:
“‘I don’t think we can turn our backs on the humanitarian needs in Iraq.’ But others were doubtful
“‘How can you go assess water pollution if you don’t know if the program you want can be put in place?’ said one woman who was planning to leave. ‘Security is the most important thing right now. There is very localized security in small pockets and the rest of the country is going to the dogs.'”
Robert Fisk of the British Independent, in his most recent piece (see below), underlines an exploitable weakness that lies at the heart of American unilateralism in Iraq: “But in reality, yesterday’s attack was against the United States. For it proves that no foreign organisation – no NGO, no humanitarian organisation, no investor, no businessman – can expect to be safe under America’s occupation rule. The Americans can reconstruct the dead faces of Saddam’s two sons, but they can’t reconstruct Iraq.”
“[Y]esterday’s bombing was therefore aimed at the jugular of any future ‘peace-keeping’ mission,” he says of the suicide attack, which swept away so many people, ranging from the German wife of an arrested Iraqi scientist/official of the Saddam regime to an analyst for the openDemocracy website (“The devastating bombing of the UN mission in Baghdad on 19 August killed and injured many respected figures, including Sergio Vieira de Mello, UN high commissioner for refugees. Our own columnists were caught in the blast. Arthur Helton was killed, and Gill Loescher seriously wounded”).
The Americans now want a new UN resolution that will give up no military control in Iraq while bringing in more foreign troops. The only country that seems now likely to take us up on this is Turkey, which is considering whether to send up to 10,000 of its troops assumedly into the relatively quiet Kurdish areas of the north. How these soldiers would be helpful is hard to imagine, since they would likely insure new struggles between Kurds and Turks.
Columnist Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times makes a point similar to Fisk’s and then goes on to describe how Iraqi nationalism is fuelling a guerrilla struggle in ways the Americans are loathe to imagine. Note, after all, that most of the high officials of Saddam’s regime – that pack of cards — other than the tyrant himself have now been picked up and incarcerated and yet the attacks have only escalated. ( Blood on the sky-blue flag)
“The bombing of the United Nations headquarters is the culmination of a coherent sequence: sabotage of water pipelines, sabotage of oil pipelines, and now sabotage of humanitarian aid. Water, oil and the UN are the targets in a perverse scorched-earth policy designed to prevent any possibility of normalization in Iraq. In the minds of the attackers, as the American occupying force has organized and installed a durable chaos, now it’s the time to tell the Americans: you don’t, and you can’t, control anything the bombing was a stark warning to any nation that might even contemplate sending peacekeepers to Iraq, and thus internationalize the American occupation.”
Escobar also adds:
“The rationale of the Iraqi resistance is clear, and follows the anti-American graffiti found on countless walls around Baghdad. There’s no nostalgia at all for Saddam, but he is considered to be a lesser evil than the Americans, who are regarded as not treating Iraqis with even an inch of respect. Americans are simply incapable of understanding how deep is the average Iraqi’s anger and resentment. With the Americans bunkered in a ‘circle the wagons’ mentality, there’s simply no possibility of winning any hearts and minds.”
A recent example of American “understanding” of Iraq can be found in a Reuters piece spotted at CNN by an eagle-eyed reader, who writes: “Can you believe this? For starters, the misogyny (the worst thing is to be a woman). And then the ineffable American talent for winning hearts and minds in non-European countries.” The piece is headlined, “U.S. deploys ‘Zsa Zsa Saddam'” ( To check out the image click here) and begins:
“He has been portrayed as a monster, a murderer, and a genocidal dictator. Now U.S. troops are giving us a whole new vision of Saddam Hussein — a blonde-haired movie goddess with rouged lips and a low-cut blouse. ‘Zsa Zsa Saddam’ is one of a series spoof images of the ousted Iraqi dictator that are due to be posted on walls and billboards around his former stronghold of Tikrit by troops of the 4th Infantry Division’s 1st Battalion 22nd Armoured Regiment
“‘Maybe its funny for the soldiers,’ [Uday, a 22-year old translator working with U.S forces in Tikrit] told Reuters, ‘But I think most local Iraqis will find it very insulting.'”
Or how about this passage from a recent Jon Lee Anderson New Yorker magazine piece, “Iraq’s Bloody Summer.” At one point, he examines a large mural painted on the wall of one of Saddam’s former palaces where U.S. troops are now stationed:
“Two very American-looking bathing beauties wearing Ray-bans and bikinis and black leather knee-high platform boots were portrayed lounging seductively at either end of a large swimming pool that looked a lot like the one right outside [the window]. An Abrams tank was parked at the edge of the pool between the girls with its turret pointing forward. The word ‘Gunners’ appeared on a shield next to a palm tree, and at one side, under the words ‘Major Operations,’ were the names of the regiment’s raids [in search of Saddamists and potential guerrillas], among them ‘Bulldog Gangbang,’ ‘Big Jism,’ and ‘Abu Enema.'”
Perhaps the only mainstream call I’ve seen of late for the development of an exit strategy, something that would leave Bulldog Gangbang and Zsa Zsa Saddam behind, was a brave column by Bob Herbert in today’s New York Times, “A Price Too High,” that takes on the “more troops” argument. I strongly recommend it. (See below).
In the meantime, there are those images that stand in here for what’s going on there. On television and in the press, it’s now common to hear that Iraq is a “magnet” drawing in various jihadists and Islamist terrorists (or rather that the American presence is a magnet for the same). The cleverest pro-administration spin on this (though it’s quite certifiably mad, of course) is that Iraq is so much “flypaper” drawing those terrorists to their doom — terrorists who assumedly would otherwise be fighting in the streets of San Diego. (No, I mean it. This is essentially what they’re saying.)
It’s a new explanation for the war – we went there to act as bait and draw “them” in. In this bad-news-is-secretly-good-news interpretation, the magnet and the flypaper turn out to be but active versions of our old imagistic buddy, quagmire, the feared Q-word. The quagmire just sat there, of course, part of the landscape, until you stumbled into it and found yourself being sucked down. But somebody puts up flypaper or puts down a magnet. These images have a false sense of planning embedded in them.
Newsday‘s quirky conservative columnist James Pinkerton wrote a column today about the French press’s view of the Iraqi “quagmire” that begins ( The French Have a Word for Iraq: Quagmire):
“What’s French for quagmire? I learned the answer in the wake of the bombing attack that struck United Nations offices in Baghdad. The word is bourbier. As the left-wing daily Liberation put it, America has found itself in a ‘bourbier sanglant a la vietnamienne’ – that is, a ‘bloody quagmire, Vietnam-style’
“The other papers here were kinder, but not much more hopeful. Atop The Wall Street Journal Europe’s front page was this banner: ‘Bomb Attack on U.N. HQ in Iraq Underscores U.S. Security Crisis.’ On the front page of Le Monde, the paper of record here, a front-pager was ‘Disarray in Washington.’ And Le Parisien, the daily for the city’s working-stiff subway riders, offered nearly the same header: ‘Disarray in the United States.’
“Should Americans care what the French think about our occupation of Iraq? Not if they’re happy with the way things are going over there…”
Our most recent images of war in Iraq remind me, however, of something else from the Vietnam era: As I wrote in my book The End of Victory Culture, the Vietnam War, as planned by our military became “literally an ambush waiting to happen. In approximately 90 percent of company-sized engagements the enemy initiated the action and 80 percent of the time the element of surprise lay with that enemy. For the foot soldier, war largely meant walking, riding, or flying until the enemy decided to attack. Most of the time, the ‘grunt’ was bait meant to draw the enemy into the ‘open,’ where American fire power could do the rest.”
Now in a thoroughly farcical twist on this, our leaders seem to be suggesting that in Iraq the whole shebang, the complete American presence is like one vast Vietnam patrol – so much “bait” meant to draw the terrorists into our trap and then crush them at a place of our choosing. This is, of course, a joke, just not to the members of the “presence,” or to their families at home, or to the UN Mission members who got killed in their stead or their families around the world, or obviously to the Iraqis.
As geopolitical analyst Paul Rogers of the www.openDemocracy.net website suggests in his latest column (included below):
“Both the sheer human cost and the symbolism of attacking a multinational body make the UN assault devastating. But its deeper significance is to reveal the faultlines in the US strategy for Iraq. The US has steadfastly avoided allowing the UN any serious power in the development of Iraq as a truly independent state. Such an outcome would be unacceptable in Washington, which requires a client regime safely installed in Baghdad, giving the US greatly increased leverage across the region as well as access to Iraq’s huge oil resources.”
This is one of those moments for thinking outside the box. No more bait. No more troops. We need an exit strategy. An armed occupation of Iraq by a foreign power with gargantuan imperial dreams, intent on controlling the Middle East, can’t solve these problems — not with more of the same or even a lot more of the same. Time to go home. Time to turn this over to someone who actually has the interests of the Iraqi people at heart. Time for an exit strategy. Tom
A Price Too High
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times
August 21, 2003How long is it going to take for us to recognize that the war we so foolishly started in Iraq is a fiasco – tragic, deeply dehumanizing and ultimately unwinnable? How much time and how much money and how many wasted lives is it going to take?
At the United Nations yesterday, grieving diplomats spoke bitterly, but not for attribution, about the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. They said it has not only resulted in the violent deaths of close and highly respected colleagues, but has also galvanized the most radical elements of Islam.
“This is a dream for the jihad,” said one high-ranking U.N. official. “The resistance will only grow. The American occupation is now the focal point, drawing people from all over Islam into an eye-to-eye confrontation with the hated Americans.
To read more Herbert click here
UN Attack Underlines America’s Crumbling Authority And Shows It Can Not Guarantee The Safety Of Any One
By Robert Fisk
The Independent
August 20, 2003What UN member would ever contemplate sending peace-keeping troops to Iraq now? The men who are attacking America’s occupation army are ruthless, but they are not stupid. They know that President George Bush is getting desperate, that he will do anything – that he may even go to the dreaded Security Council for help – to reduce US military losses in Iraq. But yesterday’s attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad has slammed shut the door to that escape route.
To read more Fisk click here
Two insurgencies, one superpower, no victory
By Paul Rogers
openDemocracy
August 21, 200 3The past week in Iraq has been the worst for the United States since its occupation of the country began four months ago. In addition to the many, now routine, attacks on US troops, there have been the sabotage of the main oil pipeline, damage to the Baghdad water supply and – by far the worst – the bombing of the UN mission and assassination of its senior official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.